Publications

The life of Ancient Greek philosopher Socrat draws to itself attention of many researchers. Special interest as historians, and all those who is interested in philosophy history, causes Socrat death. Unusual circumstances of this violent and simultaneously heroic death became for a long time object of scientific studying of representatives of various branches of knowledge.

Let's try to look at circumstances of death of Socrat from a position of the believed right, i.e. from a position of modern legal profession and lawyer activity.

As it is known, Socrat has been made answerable that does not honour gods who are honoured by a city, and enters new deities, and is guilty that corrupts youth. Removal to Socrat of a verdict of guilty and appointment of punishment in the form of the death penalty became result of proceeding. Having analysed written attestations of eyewitnesses of these events and historical researches, we have come to an unequivocal conclusion: condemnation and Socrat death is a consequence of its refusal of a legal aid.

Let's short describe general provisions of affairs with criminal protection in the Ancient Greece during deployment of the main event - vessels over Socrat. In VI - V centuries BC, during an epoch of blossoming of the Athenian democracy, appear the separate persons professionally rendering a legal aid to the citizen, involved in the criminal liability, - logografs, sinegors and pragmatists.

Logografs - "writers of speeches". Their activity was carried out on compensate to a basis and put before itself a main objective - to help successful conducting business in court. Such work was carried out by gathering of materials on business, instructions of the judicial instance to which consideration business was subject, elections of the most "favourable" kind of the complaint, and in cases when punishment has not been established by the law, - definition of a suitable measure of punishment, and also a writing of the text of the speech, which client then said in court.

Sinegors - "helping orators" - the persons tempted in oratory, delivering a speech in protection of the client. Originally it were relatives accused, and then the right of pronouncing of a speech for the defence has passed to friends or simply professional orators.

The requirement of the Athenian society for judicial orators has called for a life the whole direction in a social life - a sophism. Sophists are persons who for compensation trained in skill of judicial dispute. As it is known, the sophistic school has formed base for philosophy occurrence. We will dare to draw the following conclusion: lawyer activity on a level with the religious has served as motive power of origin and philosophy development.

Pragmatists - a special class of legal advisers which accompanied orators in court and advised them on legal issues during process. Pragmatists by the nature of the activity are closest to modern understanding of the lawyer and its work.

Over Socrat we will spend the process analysis on the basis of works of two most known authors: pupil Socrat - Platon 1 and antique historian-philosopher Diogena Laertsky 2.

To begin with we will consider tactics of the accusing party in Socrat business. According to Diogena Laertsky's descriptions, process against Socrat was prepared by three lawyers. The basic essence of criminal trial of the Ancient Greece consisted in pronouncing of speeches. In a role logograf, i.e. the composer of speech, the sophist of Polikrat has acted. With charge against Socrat Miletus acted. It has made the first speech to judges. After the first speech the second speech, defterology which said sinegor was said. In a role sinegor from outside charges Polievkit, under Platon's certificate - Anitas has acted. Demagogue Likon has arranged all necessary preparation for process. On this example we observe narrow professional specialisation of lawyers of the Ancient Greece. One professional prepares speech, other it says. Thus they do not distract on conducting business in which the third expert, in turn, is engaged. Such professional approach to business also did not dream modern Russian lawyers, which "and the seamstress, and the reaper, and the pipes player ".

Texts of speeches for the prosecution on Socrat business have not reached us. We can judge their quality only by their results yes under isolated data on them in Socrat speech for the defence. In the speech Socrat recognised: "... Me concerns, from their speeches I hardly was also myself have not forgotten: so convincingly they spoke".

What Socrat? How it has built the protection on obviously far-fetched charges? Such general sensation is created that the protection it provoked a verdict of guilty. But, on the other hand, however many in the speeches for the defence Socrat spoke about readiness to die, in its speech its obvious desire to live is distinctly traced. In it two desires as though struggle: to protect itself and at the same time not to lose the face and to remain the philosopher in own understanding.

So, for Socrat lawyer Lisiem had been wrote a speech for the defence. The philosopher, having read it, has told: "Excellent speech at you, Fox, yes to me it not to the person", - for too obviously this speech was more likely judicial, than philosophical. Socrat, apparently, prepared not for judicial session, and to a philosophical discourse. Thus Socrat has rejected the help of the lawyer.

At the same time clumsy assistance in judicial session was rendered to it by its pupil, the future great philosopher Platon. Platon, being Socrat friend, has acted in a role sinegor. Without being the professional lawyer and the orator, during court Platon has climbed up a scaffold and has started to speak: "Citizens Athenians, I - youngest of all who here ascended...", but judges have cried: "Down with! Down with!" That Platon such introduction of the and not said speech wished to tell? Or he wished to glorify itself(himself): here, say, what I young, and already protect great Socrat, or wished to cause to myself pity as to the orator, appealing to the youth. In any of two variants is a monstrous legal ignorance or banal neglect to interests of the client. Diogen Laertsky directly connects a verdict of guilty with this trick of lawyer Platon testing in a role. Thus Platon in the product "Socrat Apologia" a word does not mention this episode.

Socrat speeches in court are fine from the philosophical point of view, but are full of errors from a protection position. Socrat speech was not perceived by judges. During the performance Socrat constantly addresses to judges: "And you remember, about what I you asked in the beginning, - not to rustle if I speak in own way".

Socrat basic rhetorical error consisted in constant predict the defeat: "And if that ruins me, so it; Does not grind and not Anitas, and slander and hostility many - that has ruined already many fair people, I think, as still will ruin". How it is possible to convince others, being assured of business loss?

On the one hand, Socrat searches sympathy at judges: specifies in the military merits before the policy, speaks about the family, children, constantly underlines the poverty. On the other hand, to judges - to citizens of Athenes he addresses with following words: "Really, if you kill me, it will be hard to you to find still such person which, ridiculously to tell, is put to a city as a gadfly to a horse, big and noble, but grown lazy from fatness and requiring in that it adjusted". We personally after such words would have only one desire - to slam this importunate gadfly.

During the second part of process when judges began to define to Socrat a penalty or пеню, he has suggested to pay the penalty in size twenty five drachmas (it is insignificant the small sum). Judges have rustled, and he has told: "On my merits I to myself would appoint instead of any punishment a dinner in Pritanee". In modern understanding this situation can be depicted as follows: the person have condemned for a crime, and he demands for it from court the state award - an award "Hero of Russia".

Socrat in litigation very much did not have the professional lawyer and the orator. In the speech he tries to deny a legal inconsistency of the charge, all its discrepancy and an illogicality. It is one of the strongest from the legal point of view of places in Socrat speech. But construction of speech and rhetorical receptions used in it in most cases are unsuccessful and bring to nothing all logic of reasonings of Socrat.

If a similar verdict of guilty have taken out in modern Russia, it would be undoubtedly excellent cassation instance on the basis of non-realised defendant of the right to the qualified legal aid.